Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Patrick Fannon


 * Note - I tried to look into the COI. The subject of the biography doxxed the nominator on Facebook. From what I gathered, the COI the nominator has disclosed is that the nominator is acquainted with persons the subject of the article allegedly harassed. This is a tenuous COI as awareness of an incident isn't necessarily a conflict. There doesn't appear to be any benefit to the nominator regardless of the outcome of the AfD. Nevertheless all disclosure is good. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. This AfD is of a length and with a respectable level of participation that is almost evenly divided such that I do not believe a relist would be likely to bring us to a consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sean Patrick Fannon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He's a minor figure of little notability in the RPG industry. This is likely a vanity page. LambdaKnight (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — LambdaKnight (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  17:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  17:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep there are references listed on the page with enough notability to pass AfDs of similar articiles. More to the point LambdaKnight is by definition a Single Purpose Account whoes only contributions have been to disrupt this page. Web Warlock (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lack of activity on this account is mostly because this is the first time I've done something that needed an account. All of the previous corrections I have made were done without an account. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lack of activity is not reason. It remains that the only contributions you have made to Wikipedia is to get this article removed. Web Warlock (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, all of my other activity has been done without an account. This is the only contribution that I've wanted to make to Wikipedia that required an account. The current singular nature of this account is simply a consequence of Wikipedia's rules on what you can and cannot do without an account. LambdaKnight (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What IP address did you edit under? Right now this looks exactly like a single purpose account created for the sole purpose of getting this page deleted. You have not made any other edits as far as I can tell since May 2018. Web Warlock (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me dig up my list of dynamically assigned IPs from my ISP since whenever. And you are either the subject of the article or a friend of Sean Patrick Fannon as I have now been attacked with this same argument by Sean Patrick Fannon himself on Facebook. This calls into question your objectivity in this discussion. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My editing history here is well established over the last 14 years. Including Working on AfDs exactly like this one.  However it does seem that you have a conflict of interest here and prior engagement with the subject. Web Warlock (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Didn't you also just demonstrate you also have a conflict of interest here and prior engagement with the subject? LambdaKnight (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That Facebook post is particularly concerning, especially if this AFD came to being as a result of a dispute with the subject. BOZ (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll notice the time of that post is after this AfD was started. That post was in response to me creating this AfD. Noting the similarity in argument bewteen Web Warlock and the post, I can only conclude that Sean Patrick Fannon and Web Warlock are the same person or friends. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you would be wrong. There are plenty of people here who actually know who I am in real life and even a sloppy Google search would turn up the answers. No, I am not Sean Patrick Fannon. I know of him of course, but I have been editing RPG pages and saving pages from deletion for over a decade here, I know every RPG designer. A simple look at my User page would reveal that. Web Warlock (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. I have better things to do than to play internet sleuth. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I am simply undertaking these actions as suggested by Cullen328 and Collect in Talk:Sean_Patrick_Fannon. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I only see niche sources, if they’re even reliable. Winning awards isn’t the barometer of notability. I don’t see him meeting GNG at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources introduced by Web Warlock to help meet the GNG, otherwise move to draft space so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Biographical information is unsourced. All sources are either industry insider awards or interviews on random industry insider blogs. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your vote is when you made the nomination. – The Grid  ( talk )  22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and struck the second !vote. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was under the impression this wasn't strictly a vote and were simply arguments for/against the deletion, but I guess I was mistaken. LambdaKnight (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not strictly a vote (hence the ! before the vote) but showing which side you're on helps the closer to clearly read the overall consensus when they close the article. You're free to continue commenting. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. I see at most one source which I think might count, and it's one of the book sources. None of the sources which have been added are helpful to determine notability. The article is basically a giant CV and may fail WP:PROMO regardless. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This observation is incorrect. Designers & Dragons is a reliable source, the ENie awards contribute to WP:CREATIVE, and so do the Guest of Honor appearances (per CREATIVE, "The person is regarded as an important figure" within their creative domain). WP:N is met. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy-based argument for deletion, so this really ought to be closed as Keep. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the author of Savage Rifts, Fanon already meets NCREATIVE since the former has been reviewed in Geeknative and Wired, both reliable sources. The Designers & Dragons reference shows that the subject can be reliably sourced apart from reviews of their work, which is the only constraint on an NCREATIVE notability claim. (NOTINHERITED, for those keeping score at home, means that works are not necessarily Notable because of their creators, but creators ARE notable because of their works.)
 * NOTE: 18 new references have been added since the AFD debate. I have at least 3-4 more. Web Warlock (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * None of those pass WP:GNG, as far as I can tell. Some of them are podcast interviews (which don't pass WP:GNG), some of them are written by him, none of them appear to cover him significantly. The Wired article is basically an extended interview. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Potential CoI: I have been informed that LambdaKnight has a potential WP:BLPCOI due to previous engagements with the subject of this article. Such engagement corresponds to the creation of this users account. I am requesting an Admin look into this. Web Warlock (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sean Patrick Fannon went through the effort of connecting my real life Facebook account with my Wikipedia account and accused me of attacking his page. As I was tagged on Facebook, I was notified by Facebook and I have responded to his post. The post he made occurred after this AfD and I have had no prior contact with Sean Patrick Fannon. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Potential CoI: The post referenced by Web Warlock above was made after I started this AfD and uses a very similar argument that Web Warlock stated in this discussion. It seems that Web Warlock is either the subject of the article itself or very closely engaged with the subject of the article. While an admin is looking into any potential conflicts of interest, I request you look in to their possible CoI. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable, independent sources can be furnished that devote significant coverage to this person as a person. The article now has a "Personal life" section that is entirely unreferenced. That is a violation our core content policy of verifiability. If he has created notable games, then he can be mentioned in articles about those games. At this time, I see no evidence that this person is notable, as Wikipedia defines the term, but I am open to being convinced otherwise. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is the complaint then why not just delete that section? He is mentioned by name in a few scholarly works about RPGs. So there is that. Web Warlock (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen328's !vote is not policy-compliant. As the subject of the article is discussed in multiple Reliable Sources, and has authored multiple works that meet notability criteria, he is by definition notable himself. Notable does not equal famous. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a biography of a person. If we deleted the biographical information, then the article is pointless., please point me to one or two reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person. Passing mentions are insufficient, . Significant coverage of the person is required. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the criteria, Cullen328. There is no requirement that the RS discuss the person at length outside the context of their work. The subject of this article has authored multiple works which have each been multiply reviewed, and Designers & Dragons among other sources reliably attests to the person. NCREATIVE AND WP:N are met. We can have a WP article without the "Personal life" section, if they cannot be sourced: indeed, WP has many, many such articles. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what's being asked for. The coverage that's "inside" the context of their work doesn't even pass WP:GNG at the moment. If you could show some sources with significant coverage of the individual, that would be helpful and probably swing my vote as well as, but without speaking for them, Cullen328's. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the contention is that Shaintair and Savage Rifts are notable games, and that Evil Beagle Games is a notable company, then why are there no Wikipedia articles about them? Two are red links,, and the other is a redirect to a broader article that does not even mention Savage Rifts. You can't claim that WP:NCREATIVE is met without providing convincing evidence that things mentioned as a person's major accomplishment are notable, and the way to do that is by writing policy compliant articles about their accomplishments. As for WP:GNG, there isn't a single reference to a reliable, independent source that devotes significant coverage to this person. Quotes and interviews are not independent coverage and passing mentions are not significant coverage. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Savage Rifts has been reviewed by GeekNative and Wired; it is therefore notable. Shaintar received mutiple ENie awards: it is therefore notable. I don't have to write a WP article about either to make that notability real; that isn't the way Notability works in WP, Also, it isn't a question of the sources in the article (although Designers & Dragons is a reliable one); it is a question of whether they exist. The reviews most certainly do, and so does other independent coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The ENies appear to be a blog, and the 2017 listing brings up a "page no longer exists" error. As an outside observer, it does not seem like a notable award. The Wired article I've seen just interviews him on his game. It does not pass WP:GNG for the purposes of this article. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * this is not an interview, but rather a report. And the ENnie Awards are indeed notable, to judge from the WP article about them. Newimpartial (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if, for the sake of argument, it's not an interview of Fannon, it's not sufficiently independent of the creator to be considered a true review. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article about GeekNative and I consider the ENnie Awards to be of dubious notability. Just a typical industry insider backscratching award like dentists, accountants, real estate agents and insurance brokers award to each other at their annual conventions. Wired is obviously a reliable source in the abstract, but the article you link to consists almost entirely of direct quotes from Fannon with negligible to zero independent reporting about him. That is a very long way from significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. It is essentially an interview. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The ENnie Awards have been used in many, many past RPG related AFDs to establish notability. Web Warlock (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That might work for the RPG itself, but there's no mention of the game's designer in any of the ENnie links I've seen, and a number of the links don't appear to be reliable sources anyways. I would have serious concerns for assuming notability for a person based on winning a fan vote. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You would probably be accurate in your statement if the clients of dentists, accountants, real estate agents and insurance brokers voted on who to give the industry awards to. The Ennies Awards are presented at a convention, but they are not decided by people in the industry to award each other. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In the interests of full disclosure, while I have never met or interacted with Sean Patrick Fannon, I have had friends who have accused him of sexual harassment in the past and their story was written about in an external article. My original interaction with this article was regarding that. After discussion, it was determined that the article in question was not of a high enough quality to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. During that discussion, two editors also brought up that the article in its entirety might not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I nominated this article for deletion based on those primarily and believed at the time of nomination that I was acting as impartially as I could. However, after the attacks on my person on Facebook, I cannot be fully certain of my impartiality anymore. 98.245.177.128 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh. That was me. I'm really not used to logging in here. LambdaKnight (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you have just admitted that you originally attempted to delete this page based WHOLLY on your personal feelings and now disclosed CoI. You are further stating that you are continuing to attempt to delete this page but now your personal feelings have nothing to do with your attempt - while continuing to delete other articles of people who spoke out against your actions. I put forth that this all continues to be based on your acknowledged CoI. No matter how strongly a contributor feels, or even how justified those feelings are, Wikipedia articles should not be deleted out of spite.Ceronomus (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I originally added information to this article, specifically information about some women that came forth with accusations of sexual harassment by Sean Patrick Fannon. It was removed and there was a discussion about the quality of the reference I provided. During the discussion, it was noted that the entire article was probably not of sufficient quality. That happened in May. I was reminded of that discussion recently, saw that the page remain virtually unchanged from when that discussion occurred, and simply started the ball rolling to act on that previous discussion. When I first started this discussion, I believed that I was acting as impartially as I could. After I was harassed outside of Wikipedia, I came to doubt that I was as impartial as I originally believed. So, I disclosed that. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The article still has no real sources making the person actually notable, and WP:DOXING any Wikipedia editor is improper as well. The arguments for or against deletion have nothing at all to do with personal "real identities" but only with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and !votes based on anything else are improper. Most of the "article" is completely and utterly unsourced to any reliable sources. The only issue here is notability as established in reliable sources, and, on that basis, the article is absolutely deletable. Podcasts are not reliable sources, Period. Collect (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The preceding !vote is not policy compliant, as AfD discussions are always to be based on the available sources in relation to policy, and never simply in the sourcing of the article. As well, the editor appears ignorant of the actual sources under discussion: neither Designers & Dragons, nor Wired, nor GeekNative, nor the ENnie Awards are "podcasts". Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely compliant due to the requirement that subjects be "notable" based on reliable sources and "podcasts" not based on reliable sources do not miraculously become reliable sources. As I have some experience on Wikipedia, especially in the area of BLPs  (well over 5,000 edits), I suggest that your attempt at aspersion casting is what is irrelevant to the purposes of AfD discussions (more than 690). https://dwarves.podiant.co/e/360d96739f5c8e/ is also a "podcast".  And the "Ennies" are basically a vote tally of fans and nothing more  As my experience with RPGs goes back to original AD&D, and knowing one of the early TSR editors.  (Also MITSGS where role-playing games were used in the early 1960s). Saying another editor is "ignorant" is not really a great idea in any discussion.    Collect (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Collect, the sources I have referred to in this AfD have been Designers & Dragons, Wired, GeekNative, and the ENnie Awards. These sources are sufficient to demonstrate Notability per policy, and even were they not, none of them are podcasts. It was an act of AGF for me to assume that you were referring lumping these sources in with podcasts out of ignorance, but if you have another explanation for your error, I would be happy to hear it. Otherwise you are just not hearing why I referred to your !vote as noncompliant - and your chest thumping about your long acquaintance with WP and with OSR RPGs doesn't change that in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have noted that I am damn familiar with AfDs in the past, and, using the standards of Wikipedia in the past, this person is not notable. Citing alphabet soups of essays do not impress me much at all. My !vote was directly on point with regard to notability, and I suggest that your iterated claims otherwise will not impress a closer of this AfD.  https://www.geeknative.com/about/ Geek Native is a blog for gamers – for roleplayers – and covers a range of geek friendly interest areas. states in simple English that "Geek Native" is a blog.  Using WordPress.   WordPress blogs are considered BLOGS at WP:RS/N.  That you think a WordPress blog is a "reliable source" means you have not read the RS/N discussions in the past about such blogs. http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/   a self-described BLOG.  I assure you that very few "blogs" meet WP:RS at all.  Collect (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In spite of the puffery above, the ENnie Awards remain awards, rather than a blog. If your objection, Collect, is not to the notability of the award but to the reliability of the documentation, then that can be discussed rationally, but that discussion is not advanced by pretending that because the awards have a blog that they therefore are themselves a blog, which is quite ridiculous.
 * GeekNative is a self-published source (namely a blog) that is covered by the following carve-out in WP:SPS - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The author of GeekNative has been published professionally by others in this domain, in The Scotsman and elsewhere, and is most certainly "an established expert on the subject matter" of roleplaying. Just as a review by Ken Hite would contribute to notability even if featured in his podcast, so does a GeekNative review. We don't need The Space Gamer to be revived in order to grant reliable reviews to RPGs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear in regards to the ENnie Awards, the page you linked to is the blog of the Ennie awards. It does not say that the awards, themselves, are a blog. Their about page[] states they are an award granting organization with yearly ceremonies. Merely using the word "blog" in the website title to indicate that section is where they post their announcements wouldn't seem to mean that it is only a blog. Can you provide an example of an industry specific award that you feel qualifies for WP:RS? I am new to determining notability and want to familiarize myself with some examples before weighing in. &#8213; Vancian &#124; &#9993;   17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The "source" for the awards is a blog. I did not find outside sources for them otherwise. The Hugo Awards are also "fan-awarded", and are covered in major reliable sources. The World Science Fiction Society is a real corporate entity, and has a .org website, rather than a wordpress "blog." The "Hugos" get routine coverage in the New York Times. The "ENNies" get no coverage in newspapers.  They only get covered at "mynewsdesk.com" (Mynewsdesk is a self-publishing PR firm) listed under "press releases." Any award which only gets press release coverage from itself and its own blog is not a major award.  Do you grasp the difference? An "award" which is only found in its own press releases, and an award which gets major RS news coverage are not the same. Collect (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear enough, thank you. I will look into them more. My own memories of them are that they are more notable than that but that's irrelevant if I cannot find sources. &#8213; Vancian &#124; &#9993;   18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Listed bibliography shows author meets notability requirements for Creative Individuals [WP:AUTHOR] - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or *collective body of work* [emphasis mine]. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." 30 Shaintar and 11 Savage Rifts releases certainly qualify as significant and are only a portion of his collective body of work. That his work has been nominated for 4 ENnies and won one? His work certainly qualifies as "well-known".Ceronomus (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "An "award" which is only found in its own press releases"  - Tabletop Gaming UK, Polygon , Board Game Geek (a blog - but a major news source in the RPG community) , Geek Native (the notability of this blog is already mentioned above) , and the list goes on. The ENnies are the largest and most significant RPG industry award - far surpassing things such as the 3 Castles awards or the Rodneys. Ceronomus (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of adding more detail and citations to the ENnie Awards page. If it is going to be used as a notable source then the page on it should be more fleshed out. &#8213; Vancian &#124; &#9993;   18:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The ENnies are regularly and extensively covered by paradigmatic RS Polygon, which would make them notable all by itself. Collect, you might want to back down rather than referring to them again as a podcast (sic). Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looking beyond the obvious COI disclosed here (which is not reason to keep or delete - COIs do not invalidate an argument, they only make it suspect) subject is most certainly notable as shown by updated references and bibliography. Ceronomus (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * weak Delete A bit unsure, I am not Suresh hobbyist pod casts are enough. Also I am a bit iffy that we do not have (for example) page numbers for some of the sources. As well as a few primary sources. And it much of it reads distinctly like puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:Author #3, someone is notable if they have created a well-known work or collective body of work. Per the listed bibliography the subject has created a significant body of work and qualifies as notable. The article could use additional citations and more work but should not be delted. Only improved. Working on adding those now. &#8213; Vancian &#124; &#9993;   18:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A few secondary source references to support the "significant collected body of work" claim.  &#8213; Vancian &#124;  &#9993;   18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - the works and references seem to exist in a small walled garden of closely connected publications. There is virtually no coverage by independent secondary sources. ConstantPlancks (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Designers & Dragons, Wired, GeekNative, and the ENnies are not to be found within any "small walled garden of closely connected publications". Charitably, the !vote is not grounded in an understanding of the available sources (or of what a walled garden is) and is therefore not compliant with WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wired reference, for example, is in their podcast section and references an episode. They are using their platform as a hosting service for podcasts and is not independent. It's like YouTube and should be treated as such. None of this is covered by general news outlets. In fact, the subject isn't even covered in general gaming outlets like Forbes, Polygon or Kotaku - that's a good indication of lack of notability. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see below. The article is curated content within the Wired paywall and is independent of the RPG in question; we are not talking about the Notability of the podcast here. No, pen and paper RPGs are not covered by Forbes and seldom covered by Polygon and Kotaku, but they have their own reliable sources, awards and Guests of Honor recognition. All of those are featured in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, albeit barely.  The Wired piece unequivocally passes as one of the two necessary sources (it's in-depth, secondary, independent, WP:RS, and focused on him extensively.)  For the second, there's enough multiple independent sources to combine per WP:BASIC; the one paragraph in the Times Free Press, while short, is reasonably comprehensive and combines with the passing coverage of the 2017 ENnies nomination here, and the mention of him as a featured guest at ConCoction here and at Magic City Con here to illustrate minimum notability.  EDIT:  That said, assuming this is kept, the sources do need to be cleaned up a bit - some of the recently-added ones don't pass WP:RS, and even aside from those there's too much use of WP:PRIMARY sources.  But those don't cancel out the usable ones, which are sufficient to pass WP:BASIC. --Aquillion (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the Wired piece is part of their podcast hosting service (they host the Geeks guide podcast and the written section is a summary provided by the podcasters) and not independent coverage. I believe it's pay-to-play hosting which puts it on par with youtube podcasts. It's also an episode. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to avoid making repeated false statements, Constant, inadvertent as they may be. This source is not in the "podcasts section" of Wired, and the podcasts on Wired are not in any way "pay-to-play hosting" or "on a par with YouTube" - they are presented as curated content, within the Wired paywall, the same as any other column. And there is no need for the Wired story to be "independent" from the podcast - the point is that the story, under the editorial control of Wired, covers the work in question in a non-passing reference, outside of the quotes from the interview, on a RS platform with responsible editorial control. If you can't see this, Constant, you really might want to pull back and drop the hyperbole. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The geeks guide is a podcast. The two hosts are unaffiliated with Wired. Please point to the source that says the podcast is under editorial control of Wired or where the summary of the podcast is written by Wired editors. You say it is without any sources and the "About" simply says it is a podcast. The "About" section also points to this website independent of Wired and lists the people responsible for content (it's not Wired). It says it is produced "for" hosting on Wired but not "by" Wired. The show launched in January 2010. Season One (2010) was produced for Tor.com, the website of a major science fiction book publisher. Season Two (2011) was produced for io9, a science fiction and futurism blog owned by Gawker Media. Seasons Three through Ten (2012-2019) have been produced for Wired.com, the website of the popular tech magazine Wired. Further, it's crowdfunded and they describe the production process. here's what they do: Each episode of Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy takes dozens of hours to produce. We have to brainstorm guests, schedule guests, research guests, read their new work, think up questions, record the interview, edit the interview, transcribe the interview, add links and images to the interview, brainstorm panel topics, research panel topics, produce a panel outline, brainstorm guest geeks, schedule guest geeks, record the panel, edit the panel, upload the audio to Wired, the feed, and YouTube, and post about the episode on Facebook, Twitter, and geeksguideshow.com, etc. There is no editing by Wired. Wired is hosting it. That's it. ConstantPlancks (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Unaffiliated with" is an inaccurate statement, Constant; see for example this listing of "Wired podcasts". The question of who wrote the Wired article that references inter alia the podcast interview is also not germaine - the source only needs to be independent from the game publisher and writer, which it is, not independent from the podcast. It is curated content (not a forum) published within the Wired paywall, and is therefore both independent and reliable.
 * As I have noted in the RSN discussion, Wired has exercised editorial oversight in bringing the podcast into Wired, whether or not it is involved in "production" per se. This is a fairly common situation in podcasting: for example, the Canadian state broadcaster, the CBC, hosts and distributes under contract the independently produced podcast, "Under the Influence". While I would not expect this to be treated the same as CBC News coverage, I certainly would expect it to be evaluated on WP in the same way as other affiliated current affairs coverage CBC distributes, and not as a SPS: for the CBC or Wired to distribute a podcast is in fact a kind of editorial decision. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Does not make the cut for me. Borderline case, at best. I am also amazed at how NCREATIVE is being used. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, WBG? The point of WP:CREATIVE is that people who produce a body of independently recognized work, and who have been recognized by their peers and successors in a creative field, are presumed notable. That is precisely how I have been using CREATIVE above - as intended. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.